FOxTROT2: innovative trial design to evaluate the role of neoadjuvant chemotherapy for treating locally advanced colon cancer in older adults or those with frailty.

Treating older adults with cancer is increasingly important in modern oncology practice. However, we currently lack the high-quality evidence needed to guide optimal management of this heterogeneous group. Principally, historic under-recruitment of older adults to clinical trials limits our understanding of how existing evidence can be applied to this group. Such uncertainty is particularly prevalent in the management of colon cancer (CC). With CC being most common in older adults, many patients also suffer from frailty, which is recognised as being strongly associated with poor clinical outcomes. Conducting clinical trials in older adults presents several major challenges, many of which impact the clinical relevance of results to a real-world population. When considering this heterogeneous group, it may be difficult to define the target population, recruit participants effectively, choose an appropriate trial design, and ensure participants remain engaged with the trial during follow-up. Furthermore, after overcoming these challenges, clinical trials tend to enrol highly selected patient cohorts that comprise only the fittest older patients, which are not representative of the wider population. FOxTROT1 was the first phase III randomised controlled trial to illustrate the benefit of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) in the treatment of CC. Patients receiving NAC had greater 2-year disease-free survival compared to those proceeding straight to surgery. Outcomes for older adults in FOxTROT1 were similarly impressive when compared to their younger counterparts. Yet, this group inevitably represents a fitter subgroup of the older patient population. FOxTROT2 has been designed to investigate NAC in a full range of older adults with CC, including those with frailty. In this review, we describe the key challenges to conducting a robust clinical trial in this heterogeneous patient group, highlight our strategies for overcoming these challenges in FOxTROT2, and explain how we hope to provide clarity on the optimal treatment of CC in older adults.

Lapatinib plus Capecitabine versus Trastuzumab plus Capecitabine in the Treatment of Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-positive Metastatic Breast Cancer with Central Nervous System Metastases for Patients Currently or Previously Treated with Trastuzumab (LANTERN): a Phase II Randomised Trial.

AIMS: Brain (central nervous system; CNS) metastases occur in 30-50% of patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC). A substantive evidence base for treatment is lacking, but activity with lapatinib plus capecitabine (lap-cap) has been reported. We compared lap-cap with trastuzumab plus capecitabine (tras-cap) in patients with HER2-positive MBC with CNS metastases previously treated with trastuzumab. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This open-label randomised phase II screening trial aimed to randomise 130 participants over 2 years to receive lap-cap or tras-cap. Eligible patients had HER2-positive MBC with newly diagnosed or recently progressed CNS metastases; previous, or current, treatment included: trastuzumab, a taxane or anthracycline and recent completion of local cranial therapy. The primary end point was time to progression of CNS metastases within the 24-week trial period. Secondary objectives included CNS response rate, progression-free survival, steroid use for CNS symptoms and feasibility of recruitment to a large phase III trial. RESULTS: Between September 2011 and October 2013, 30 participants were randomised, 16 to lap-cap and 14 to tras-cap. Recruitment to a large phase III trial was determined not to be feasible. At 24 weeks, CNS disease progression was 41.8% (95% confidence interval 16.1-67.5%) in lap-cap and 41.2% (95% confidence interval 12.8-69.6%) in tras-cap arms; progression-free survival was 44.4% (95% confidence interval 18.1-70.8%) in lap-cap and 50.0% (95% confidence interval 20.9-79.1%) in tras-cap arms. CONCLUSION: Poor recruitment confirmed that a larger phase III trial would not be feasible and prohibited a preliminary evaluation of the superiority of lap-cap over tras-cap. Descriptive statistics are presented to inform the limited evidence base and future study design.

Clinical and molecular characteristics and treatment outcomes of advanced right-colon, left-colon and rectal cancers: data from 1180 patients in a phase III trial of panitumumab with an extended biomarker panel.

BACKGROUND: Primary tumour location (PTL) is being adopted by clinicians to guide treatment decisions in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Here we test PTL as a predictive marker for panitumumab efficacy, and examine its relationship with an extended biomarker profile. We also examine rectal tumours as a separate location. PATIENTS AND METHODS: mCRC patients from the second-line PICCOLO trial of irinotecan versus irinotecan/panitumumab (IrPan). PTL was classified as right-PTL, left-PTL or rectal-PTL. PTL was assessed as a predictive biomarker for IrPan effect in RAS-wild-type (RAS-wt) patients (compared with irinotecan alone), then tested for independence alongside an extended biomarker profile (BRAF, epiregulin/amphiregulin (EREG/AREG) and HER3 mRNA expression). RESULTS: PTL data were available for 1180 patients (98.5%), of whom 558 were RAS-wt. High HER3 expression was independently predictive of panitumumab overall survival improvement, but PTL and EREG/AREG were not. IrPan progression-free survival (PFS) improvement compared with irinotecan was seen in left-PTL [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.61, P = 0.002) but not right-PTL (HR = 0.98, P = 0.90) (interaction P = 0.05; RAS/BRAF-wt interaction P = 0.10), or in rectal-PTL (HR = 0.82, P = 0.20) (interaction P = 0.14 compared with left-PTL; RAS/BRAF-wt interaction P = 0.04). Patients with right-PTL and high EREG/AREG or HER3 expression, had IrPan PFS improvement (high EREG/AREG HR = 0.20, P = 0.04; high HER3 HR = 0.33, P = 0.10) compared with irinotecan. Similar effect was seen for rectal-PTL patients (high EREG/AREG HR = 0.44, P = 0.03; high HER3 HR = 0.34, P = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: RAS-wt patients with left-PTL are more likely to have panitumumab PFS advantage than those with right-PTL or rectal-PTL. However, an extended biomarker panel demonstrated significant heterogeneity in panitumumab PFS effect within a tumour location. AREG/EREG and HER3 mRNA expression identifies patients with right-PTL or rectal-PTL who achieve similar PFS effect with panitumumab as left-colon patients. Testing could provide a more reliable basis for clinical decision making. Further validation and development of these biomarkers is required to optimise routine patient care. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN identifier: ISRCTN93248876.

Investigating the poor outcomes of BRAF-mutant advanced colorectal cancer: analysis from 2530 patients in randomised clinical trials.

Background: To improve strategies for the treatment of BRAF-mutant advanced colorectal cancer (aCRC) patients, we examined individual data from patients treated with chemotherapy alone in three randomised trials to identify points on the treatment pathway where outcomes differ from BRAF wild-types. Patients and methods: 2530 aCRC patients were assessed from three randomised trials. End-points were progression-free survival, response rate, disease control rate, post-progression survival (P-PS) and overall survival. Treatments included first-line oxaliplatin/fluorouracil (OxFU) and second-line irinotecan. Clinicians were unaware of BRAF-status. Results: 231 patients (9.1%) had BRAF-mutant tumours. BRAF-mutation conferred significantly worse survival independent of associated clinicopathological factors known to be prognostic. Compared with wild-type, BRAF-mutant patients treated with first-line OxFU had similar DCR (59.2% versus 72%; adjusted OR = 0.76, P = 0.24) and PFS (5.7 versus 6.3 months; adjusted HR = 1.14, P = 0.26). Following progression on first-line chemotherapy, BRAF-mutant patients had a markedly shorter P-PS (4.2 versus 9.2 months, adjusted HR = 1.69, P < 0.001). Fewer BRAF-mutant patients received second-line treatment (33% versus 51%, P < 0.001), but BRAF-mutation was not associated with inferior second-line outcomes (RR adjusted OR = 0.56, P = 0.45; PFS adjusted HR = 1.01, P = 0.93). Significant clinical heterogeneity within the BRAF-mutant population was observed: a proportion (24.3%) had good first-line PFS and P-PS (both >6 months; OS = 24.0 months); however, 36.5% progressed rapidly through first-line chemotherapy and thereafter, with OS = 4.7 months. Conclusions: BRAF-mutant aCRC confers a markedly worse prognosis independent of associated clinicopathological features. Chemotherapy provides meaningful improvements in outcome throughout treatment lines. Post-progression survival is markedly worse and vigilance is required to ensure appropriate delivery of treatment after first-line progression.